4 Major Themes:
1. Social Contract
2. Toleration and Diversity
3. Democracy and Equality
4. History (Progressive)
Contrasts:
1. Society is Natural
2.Social Harmony
3. Social Hierarchy
4. History (Circular)
(Therewas also a lot of stuff here about what counts as "modern" political thought - xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
August 24, 2006
Hobbes
1640: English Civil War
1651: Leviathan
State of Nature:
-Everyone is equally vulnerable and dangerous
-Everyone has equal desires
-Without society, war is natural
-Fear and pride drive man’s actions
When in a state of anarchy, everyone has a natural right to everything
Laws of Nature
1st: Seek Peace
2nd: Defend myself
-If the first law of nature is to make peace, then I no longer have a right to everything
August 31, 2006
Machiavelli
-The Prince was published postmortem
1. Moral relativist
-ends justify means
2. Analyzed the Roman Republic
Everyone is in a constant power struggle
First “modern” political theorist
-based his conclusions upon actual events (contemporary and Roman)
Human nature cannot meet idealistic standards
Because people are selfish, you cannot survive if you trust everyone
Self-preservation as everyone’s top priority
September 5, 2006
Geometric deduction of the most rational form of society
-What is vs. What should be
In a state of nature, what you have is what you have taken
September 12, 2006
Locke
Locke:
-Consent of exchange necessary for the transfer of property
-If property is unclaimed, its yours
Hobbes:
-Monarchy is the most convenient form of government
Hobbes
-Equality of vulnerability
-Self-preservation and promotion (lust for power)
-Morality and Justice don’t exist
-High Stakes
Locke:
-Equality because we’re all equal before god (I didn't emphasize this, but equality in Locke is ultimately the fact that in the state of nature everyone has equal jurisdiction or political authority over others, i.e., none - xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
-Regards for others as well as self-preservation
-Reason as a law of nature (there is justice)
---Innate sense of right and wrong
-Lower stakes
Hobbes and Locke agree that the international community is in the state of nature
Hobbes: War as a tendency
Locke: War as a battle
Hobbes and Locke: You can kill a thief
Hobbes: You can kill a potential thief
Locke: You can’t kill a potential thief
Hobbes: Government to prevent war (security)
Locke: Government to provide remedy (in proportion) to provide stability of property
Property:
Hobbes: No such thing as property in the state of nature, what you have is what you can take
Locke: There is property in the state of nature
-Money can exist in the state of nature without government
-Government is meant to judge issues of property because people are incapable of proportional punishment
Locke: The state of nature doesn’t necessarily lead to war but to a breakdown of cooperation
September 14, 2006
Locke (pt. 2)
Hobbes: In the state of nature there is no property
Hobbes: In the state of nature there are no coalitions for punishment
Hobbes: Sovereign decides rules arbitrarily
Locke: In the state of nature there can be money and property, but everyone is a judge leading to disproportionate retaliation
Reasons to Leave the State of Nature:
1. Impartial Judgment
2. Positive Law (concrete laws)
3. Power to punish properly
Locke: Everyone (king included) must face the same laws
Locke: You must be able to sue the king via an impartial judge, otherwise you’re still in the state of nature
Locke: Positive law must be created by an assembly once, and then “legislators return to being regular citizens”
You must consent to leave the state of nature or the government does not have rule over you
Hobbes: Consent can be coerced
Locke: Explicit consent -- (sign papers)
Locke: Tacit Consent – Enjoying property that once belonged to someone who did consent
Locke: At some point, people consented as to their sovereign
Locke: No taxation without representation
Locke: You do not consent to the sovereign but to the law itself
September 19, 2006
Rousseau
Hobbes:
(Order) Any government or society is better than the state of nature Equality:
-Vulnerability and killing Psychology:
-Self-preservation dominant
-Pride leads to downfall in the state of nature Morality:
-No moral restraints in the state of nature
-Preemptive action okay Stakes:
-High stakes (imperfectly rational)
Locke:
(Property) Not all governments or societies are better than the state of nature Equality:
-Creatures of god and equal jurisdiction over others---that is, no jurisdiction
-Right to property
-Right to punish Psychology:
-Self-preservation and other regarding
-You shouldn’t harm others Morality:
-There are restraints to maintain peace, but morality can be misinterpreted without an impartial judge Stakes:
-Not high stakes (law of nature provides reason)
Rousseau:
(Freedom) The state of nature was better than modern governments and societies Equality:
-Physical equality in the state of nature (pre-evolution)
-No relevant natural inequalities
-Independence Psychology:
-Freedom
-Self-preservation by instinct rather than rational calculation
-No harm to others out of pity
-You don’t compare yourself to others Morality:
-No morality but also no vice
-People are too stupid to do harm to others
-People are content, there is no lust for power
-There is no need to worry about tomorrow Stakes:
-No stakes because there is no interaction
Rousseau: Moral inequality – wealth and class cause people to become independent on each others
Rousseau: When there is no conflict with self-preservation you don’t want to hurt others out of compassion (pity)
-There is no rationality behind pity
Rousseau: Little to no interaction among people, once you are self-sufficient you go off into the woods
Rousseau: State of nature as a utopia with absolute equality
Rousseau: Inequality not as differences, but as dependency
Rousseau: Most societies are illegitimate because they bring about inequalities not found in the state of nature
Reaching Society:
Rousseau: Invent language, knowledge, fear of death, foresight
-Caused by our faculty of perfecting ourselves (separating us from animals)
Rousseau: Native Americans (Caribes?) as half-step between the state of nature and modern society (this may be the best place to be)
-Half-way out of the state of nature
--Knowledge of death
--Foresight
--Families
--Emergence of pride (inevitably leads to equality)
September 21, 2006
Rousseau (pt. 2)
Hobbes: Leave state of nature by consent; reenter state of nature by entering the state of
war
-YOU ARE VULNERABLE Rousseau:
-Once out of the state of nature, there is no turning back
-No society is better than the state of nature
-Relationships don’t lead to dependence
-YOU ARE INDEPENDENT
Rousseau:
-Hypothetical starting point
--Wholly independent brutes (nature hardens us equally)
---Agility, solitude, no reason, or language
---No comparisons
-Population grows, forcing people to spread out
--In each new location people were forced to live in a new climate (fishers vs. hunter gatherers)
---Formation of families to pass on knowledge of survival in each climate
---Comparison of comparing humans to animals
-Interaction with others leads to temporary cooperation
--The stag hunt
--Begin to notice differences among various people
-Interaction in a permanent cooperation (THE PRE-MODERN SAVAGES)
(TRUE HISTORICAL SOCIETY – CARIBES IN VENZEULA) (ROUSSEAU’S FAVORITE STATE – NO LONGER APES BUT BLISSFULLY IGNORANT)
--People sing and dance together (whose the best?)
--Differences between people lead to social status but they are still somewhat equal
---The best singer might not be the strongest or richest
--People begin to desire recognition from others out of self-love
---Leads to the beginning of pride and violence
--People are now recognizably human, but still completely independent, there is no division of labor, and everyone can take care of themselves
--Little natural inequality and little social inequality (the two are correlative)
-People claim property (close to the Hobbesian state of nature)
--Agriculture and metallurgy
--People can do more than just produce what they need; others can produce things for them
Our faculty of perfecting ourselves doesn’t necessarily lead us to perfection
Social Contract:
-Those with property want to preserve their property
--There is already inequality
(Hobbes: Social contract comes from the equality of consent)
Rulers make laws to govern
Rulers abuse laws and become tyrants
ONCE OUT OF THE STATE OF NATURE THERE IS NO TURNING BACK
Independence and equality are no longer possible in economies but it is possible in direct democracy because everyone gets an equal say
September 26, 2006
Rousseau (pt. 3)
Rousseau:
-Faculty of Perfection: Humans have the ability to increase our own capabilities (e.g. our ability to learn how to farm)
-You don’t choose to leave the state of nature, you stumble out of it.
-The first social contract was created because the rich wanted to protect their property so they made a deal with the unknowing poor.
--Leads to dependence (poor need the rich, women need men, weak need the strong)
-Society is not an unqualified good
Society must be created by consent:
Hobbes: Consent can be coerced
Locke: Coercion is not consent
Rousseau: Consent is doing whatever you do to survive
Hobbes: Anything is consent
Locke: Voting is consent
Rousseau: Voting could be an educated form of manipulation/slavery (not necessarily consent)
Rousseau: Having an arbitrary king objectively makes you a slave
Rousseau: The social contract is how the people become a people
-Each of us puts our person under the power of the general will
-The sovereign cannot create a law it can’t break
-The sovereign cannot have interests contrary to the people who empowered him
October 3, 2006
Locke (Toleration)
Toleration: government shouldn’t persecute
-The use of force belongs to the civil magistrate alone
-Government may ban religious books (outward things)
-Government can’t persecute faith (inward things)
Freedom from prosecution does not equal special treatment
-You still can’t kill babies
-Religious sects that break the law don’t have to be tolerated
Government can proselytize so long as it doesn’t use force
-Government needs to tolerate, not respect
No need to tolerate atheists (promise-breakers) or Catholics (traitors, followers of a foreign prince – the Pope)
Three arguments for toleration:
1) Government knows truth about religion --> Government has use of force --> True belief cannot be compelled by violence --> Religion is about true belief --> Government shouldn’t force people on the account of religion
2) Government knows truth about religion --> Government has use of force --> You cannot compel the right attitude on religion --> Without the right attitude, you are damned anyway, so why bother forcing religion --> Government shouldn’t force people on the account of religion
3) Government doesn’t know the truth about religion --> Government has use of force --> You can compel belief --> Man doesn’t know the truth about religion, man may be wrong --> Government shouldn’t force people on the account of religion
NOTES ON TOLERATION
Locke
-speaks about toleration of other people. He is a proponent of tolerating other people but it is important to note that this toleration does NOT equal respect.
-essentially the governemment still has a right to impose its will just not at the expense of people
- Violent criminals are NOT tolerated
-Aetheists and Catholics are NOT tolerated. Catholics have allegiances to foreign prince (pope) which makes them traitors.
Aquinas
-more extreme views
-believes a person who has left the faith can be compelled (persecuted into believing again)
-believes it is acceptable to start wars on other faiths so true faith (Catholicism in Aquinas view) will not be polluted.
Locke's views about compellance and persecution are less radical.
-Religion is internal and one cannot compel belief with violence. Therefore, violence is unnecessary.
-Religion is also about right attitudes and violence does not compel right attitudes. While the government may know the truth, it cannot modify people's attitudes.
-Violence is not usually appropriate in Christianity.
Locke's view of toleration is quite narrow but will be expanded upon by future thinkers.
October 5, 2006
Mill
Locke: Duties of Christians
-Can’t force people in belief
-Can’t force the right attitude
--People either accept it or they don’t
-You can’t tell which church is the true one
Mill: Society has the ability to control you mentally
-Shame, embarrassment
-Society’s power is limited
Harm Principle: I have the right to do anything that concerns only me. The state has the right to limit my rights if my actions harm another.
What constitutes a harm?
-Intentional
-Objective consequence
-Intolerable consequence
Mill: weigh the rights and harms against each other
-What causes more good or more harm?
-Based on the individual, not the society
Mill: defends freedom of thought through the harm principle
October 10, 2006
Mill (pt. 2)
Mill: Accepts anonymous speech because it contributes to general diversity of the discussion
Mill: Pretty much anything is allowed so long as it doesn’t cause direct physical harm
Individuality: Going against the majority’s way of life, everyone should have the freedom to find their own way.
-Too much freedom may result in barbarism
Natural Penalties: You can do what you want but people don’t have to like you.
-You can be stigmatized by society for your choices.
October 24, 2006
Tocqueville
What's Tocqueville's "Democracy"?
-Government as what the majority wants (disliked tyranny of the majority)
-Based on equality, no aristocracy or nobility (independence from others)
--Aristocracy causes people to be dependent on nobles for their entire life
-Historical process
In a democratic society the majority will also be the majority in the government
-You cannot stop the majority
Tocqueville did not see politicians as worthy of their jobs (they are of low quality)
-Believed the electorate to be of high quality
-Liked local institutions
The will of the majority in any given country is not necessarily moral
October 26, 2006
Tocqueville (pt. 2)
Problems of Democracy:
-Tyranny of the Majority
--Officials judge by public opinion and not reality causing loss of respect for the rule of law
--Influence of the majority constrains freedom of thought
---The is no one for the minority to appeal to
-Mediocre Leadership – The best people do not get elected
Equality of Conditions: Everything is open to everybody
Concentration of Power:
-“Mild Despotism” or “Administrative Despotism”
-Reliance on government diminishes the individual liberties and freedoms at the heart of democracy
--No intermediate bodies to appeal to
--Turns people into sheep
October 31, 2006
Wollstonecraft
Though she never utilized the word "feminism," she was one of the first political scientists that actively advocated equal rights for both women and men. Among other things, she believed strongly in the importance of co-ed education and heavily influenced other writers of her time, such as John Stuart Mill.
Reason is universal
-By using reason we can reach moral truths
We all have an immortal soul
Women compared with Rousseau’s “slaves in love with their chains”
For integrated education so that kids would learn about equality of sexes early in life
November 2, 2006
Mill
Chapter 1: What is good government?
Chapter 2: Why representative government is good
Chapter 3: Applicability of representative government
Freedom to have more choice/ability to improve themselves
Representative government educates people to be better people (it improves them)
Mill: History as progressing forward in a positive way
November 7, 2006
Mill (pt. 2)
I. Representative government is progressive because it provides a way to improve individuals. But it doesn’t always work.
A. Sometimes a monarchy can be better than a representative government
1. Justifying Empire: Use an imperial form of government until occupied peoples have developed to the point of good self government. (e.g. U.K.’s old policy on India)
II. Representative government as a higher stage of civilization
A. Tocqueville: Democracy is good, but still young. It is important to work out problems early in to avoid the entrenchment of bad institutions and practices
III. Mill’s Problems with Representative Government
A. Class legislation:
1. Legislation designed towards different classes
2. People have different interests depending on whether or not they have property
3. Leads to the property-less majority to vote for someone to be their guy, even if he is incompetent (tyranny of the majority)
B. Poor intellectual capacity of voters:
1. This is a problem with both voters and leaders and is still present today.
2. If people vote without knowing anything, they are simply voting as they are told
3. Mill says some votes should be weighted heavier, based on education, job positions, tests you've passed, etc.
a. ex: Voter restriction: not one man one vote, the educated’s vote should count more to balance out the uneducated
b. But the ideal situation invovles not having to impose these restrictions where one must establish situations where one citizen has an advantage over the rest.
c. There are complications to this though. i.e. Does changing the weight of the vote actually make a significant difference?
ex. Income is not an indication of education (e.g. teachers and professors don’t make $200,000)
Also, people he is giving less of a vote to have a lower voter turnout anyway.
Too much ‘tinkering’ with institutions can lead to whatever the people pulling the strings want
November 14, 2004
Kant
In modern political thought history progresses in a positive movement
-The human capacity to make today better than yesterday
Rousseau: History was progressive, but peaked and society went began its decline
-Faculty fro improvement: weapons made for hunting are recognized for other uses
Rousseau: Freedom and morality dissipate as technology improves
Tocqueville: Progress of equality and democracy = progress in justice even though democracy is still flaws
Mill: Gradual progress in the pursuit of truth creates more freedom (goals of more freedom and knowledge)
-Getting closer to the truth
-Some places are at different levels of progress
--China became civilized and stopped progressing
--Barbarians:
---Learned obedience to be subject to others (monarchy)
---Learned discipline
---Learned about promotion of individuality and freedom
Kant wrote 80 years before Mill
-Appears to agree with Mill’s idea of the progression of history in a simpler way:
--Have discussion in order to:
---Use our own reason for ourselves, understanding and forming ideas without the influence of others
Despite what we think, we’re somewhat conditioned to society’s way of thinking
Can we recognize and question the status quo? Whether or not you agree with it, the decision still must be yours alone
Seeing the status quo helps you move towards enlightenment
Too many just conform unquestionably to the status quo and tradition (this is bad)
Kant: Non-conformity is NOT equal to enlightenment (though the two may overlap at times)
Enlightenment is associated with the wholesale analysis of tradition
-Analyzing tradition rarely brings out the positive side of tradition, only the negatives are seen
--Many traditions don’t have positive virtues
--Tradition gets thrown out the window
Kant as the originator of democratic peace theory
-As time progresses and democracy progresses, war will eventually end as the entire world will be democracies,
There is no way to tell if history is going to lead to a better world, it has no direction and there is no way to predict it
November 16, 2006
Hegel
Hegel: Human nature is malleable and reasonable
Community and individual interest can be at odds and Hegel wants to offer a solution
Lessons of Hegel:
1) History is a rational process
2) History happens in the state
3) The free state is the goal of history
History: The course of rationale that leads us to where we are today
Pragmatic History: Use history to make us better citizens
Purpose of Philosophy of History: Try to figure out where we’re going
-What should we look at in history to make predictions?
-The rise and fall of cultures (what worked and what didn’t)
-History is progressive
History isn’t just a faded progression across time, it’s a rational process
-Reason, and not god, is the cause of history’s progression
-History isn’t random events, it’s a progressive trend
Substance: The community we live in and the values we share
Subject: The individuals in the community
Aristotle’s Four Causes:
1) Efficient – Ideas and Actions
2) Material – The rational state
3) Final – Reason is the purpose of history
4) The constitution and law
History progresses to freedom
Hegel believes that a liberal democracy ensures the most amount of freedom for those within its society. It is the best theoretical system of government, as shown throughout history in its competition with fascism, communism, etc, and it is, in fact, the final stage of human development. In other words, it is the final major step towards the goal of reason, truth, and ultimately freedom.
November 21, 2006
Marx
Marx believes that true freedom is found only as human beings move away from being interdependant.
Hegel as Fukuyama’s thesis
The enlightened realize there is no better choice than liberal democracy
Marx: Thought Hegel was close but not quite there
-We’re progressing to liberation but we’re not there yet, but the time will come
Marx: History progresses towards the end of the state’s dominance (freedom from dependence)
You must produce so that you can eat/survive
Marx: The mode of production molds human history
If capitalism is so successful, then communism will be even better
November 28, 2006
Marx (pt. 2)
Dialectical Materialism: WE NEVER GOT TO IT IN CLASS, BUT IF ANYONE HAS A DEFINITION, FEEL FREE TO ADD IT
Proletariat: Owners of labor
Bourgeoisie: Owners of the means of production
Class as determined by the type of property owned
If everyone starts with equal capital, eventually some people will hold the majority of means to production of life (land)
Mode of production depends on the division of labor
Towns as the concentration of capital
With the evolution of the town comes the creation of supervisory labor (tax collects and whatnot)
Division of labor in towns: those who make versus those who trade
Division of capital between towns with the evolution of communications
-Specialization of Towns
--Detroit does cars
--NYC does stocks
Continuous division of labor
-With more technologies there is more ability to specialize labor
As labor becomes specialized, the connection between employer and employee becomes one of dependence
-Individual workers need the boss, but the boss can find other workers
In capitalism the bourgeoisie already have the freedoms that the proletariat does not have
-Communism lends these freedoms to the worker
-This is still better however than the divide between slave and slave owner
Political alienation from capital will lead to a societal revolution when the proletariat takes power (change in the means of production)
-But things have kept getting better for everybody so far, so where’s the revolution?
Table of Contents
Modern Political Thought
POLS 30620-01
CRN: 16709
Prof. Xavier Marquez
August 22, 2006
1532- Machiavelli
1651- Hobbes
1680- Locke
1750-1760- Rousseau
1784- Kant
1792- Wallstonecraft
1821- Hegel
1835- Tocqueville
1845- Marx
1859-1863- Mill
4 Major Themes:
1. Social Contract
2. Toleration and Diversity
3. Democracy and Equality
4. History (Progressive)
Contrasts:
1. Society is Natural
2.Social Harmony
3. Social Hierarchy
4. History (Circular)
(There was also a lot of stuff here about what counts as "modern" political thought -
August 24, 2006
Hobbes
1640: English Civil War
1651: Leviathan
State of Nature:
-Everyone is equally vulnerable and dangerous
-Everyone has equal desires
-Without society, war is natural
-Fear and pride drive man’s actions
When in a state of anarchy, everyone has a natural right to everything
Laws of Nature
1st: Seek Peace
2nd: Defend myself
-If the first law of nature is to make peace, then I no longer have a right to everything
August 31, 2006
Machiavelli
-The Prince was published postmortem
1. Moral relativist
-ends justify means
2. Analyzed the Roman Republic
Everyone is in a constant power struggle
First “modern” political theorist
-based his conclusions upon actual events (contemporary and Roman)
Human nature cannot meet idealistic standards
Because people are selfish, you cannot survive if you trust everyone
Self-preservation as everyone’s top priority
September 5, 2006
Geometric deduction of the most rational form of society
-What is vs. What should be
In a state of nature, what you have is what you have taken
September 12, 2006
Locke
Locke:
-Consent of exchange necessary for the transfer of property
-If property is unclaimed, its yours
Hobbes:
-Monarchy is the most convenient form of government
Hobbes
-Equality of vulnerability
-Self-preservation and promotion (lust for power)
-Morality and Justice don’t exist
-High Stakes
Locke:
-Equality because we’re all equal before god (I didn't emphasize this, but equality in Locke is ultimately the fact that in the state of nature everyone has equal jurisdiction or political authority over others, i.e., none -
-Regards for others as well as self-preservation
-Reason as a law of nature (there is justice)
---Innate sense of right and wrong
-Lower stakes
Hobbes and Locke agree that the international community is in the state of nature
Hobbes: War as a tendency
Locke: War as a battle
Hobbes and Locke: You can kill a thief
Hobbes: You can kill a potential thief
Locke: You can’t kill a potential thief
Hobbes: Government to prevent war (security)
Locke: Government to provide remedy (in proportion) to provide stability of property
Property:
Hobbes: No such thing as property in the state of nature, what you have is what you can take
Locke: There is property in the state of nature
-Money can exist in the state of nature without government
-Government is meant to judge issues of property because people are incapable of proportional punishment
Locke: The state of nature doesn’t necessarily lead to war but to a breakdown of cooperation
September 14, 2006
Locke (pt. 2)
Hobbes: In the state of nature there is no property
Hobbes: In the state of nature there are no coalitions for punishment
Hobbes: Sovereign decides rules arbitrarily
Locke: In the state of nature there can be money and property, but everyone is a judge leading to disproportionate retaliation
Reasons to Leave the State of Nature:
1. Impartial Judgment
2. Positive Law (concrete laws)
3. Power to punish properly
Locke: Everyone (king included) must face the same laws
Locke: You must be able to sue the king via an impartial judge, otherwise you’re still in the state of nature
Locke: Positive law must be created by an assembly once, and then “legislators return to being regular citizens”
You must consent to leave the state of nature or the government does not have rule over you
Hobbes: Consent can be coerced
Locke: Explicit consent -- (sign papers)
Locke: Tacit Consent – Enjoying property that once belonged to someone who did consent
Locke: At some point, people consented as to their sovereign
Locke: No taxation without representation
Locke: You do not consent to the sovereign but to the law itself
September 19, 2006
Rousseau
Hobbes:
(Order)
Any government or society is better than the state of nature
Equality:
-Vulnerability and killing
Psychology:
-Self-preservation dominant
-Pride leads to downfall in the state of nature
Morality:
-No moral restraints in the state of nature
-Preemptive action okay
Stakes:
-High stakes (imperfectly rational)
Locke:
(Property)
Not all governments or societies are better than the state of nature
Equality:
-Creatures of god and equal jurisdiction over others---that is, no jurisdiction
-Right to property
-Right to punish
Psychology:
-Self-preservation and other regarding
-You shouldn’t harm others
Morality:
-There are restraints to maintain peace, but morality can be misinterpreted without an impartial judge
Stakes:
-Not high stakes (law of nature provides reason)
Rousseau:
(Freedom)
The state of nature was better than modern governments and societies
Equality:
-Physical equality in the state of nature (pre-evolution)
-No relevant natural inequalities
-Independence
Psychology:
-Freedom
-Self-preservation by instinct rather than rational calculation
-No harm to others out of pity
-You don’t compare yourself to others
Morality:
-No morality but also no vice
-People are too stupid to do harm to others
-People are content, there is no lust for power
-There is no need to worry about tomorrow
Stakes:
-No stakes because there is no interaction
Rousseau: Moral inequality – wealth and class cause people to become independent on each others
Rousseau: When there is no conflict with self-preservation you don’t want to hurt others out of compassion (pity)
-There is no rationality behind pity
Rousseau: Little to no interaction among people, once you are self-sufficient you go off into the woods
Rousseau: State of nature as a utopia with absolute equality
Rousseau: Inequality not as differences, but as dependency
Rousseau: Most societies are illegitimate because they bring about inequalities not found in the state of nature
Reaching Society:
Rousseau: Invent language, knowledge, fear of death, foresight
-Caused by our faculty of perfecting ourselves (separating us from animals)
Rousseau: Native Americans (Caribes?) as half-step between the state of nature and modern society (this may be the best place to be)
-Half-way out of the state of nature
--Knowledge of death
--Foresight
--Families
--Emergence of pride (inevitably leads to equality)
September 21, 2006
Rousseau (pt. 2)
Hobbes: Leave state of nature by consent; reenter state of nature by entering the state of
war
-YOU ARE VULNERABLE
Rousseau:
-Once out of the state of nature, there is no turning back
-No society is better than the state of nature
-Relationships don’t lead to dependence
-YOU ARE INDEPENDENT
Rousseau:
-Hypothetical starting point
--Wholly independent brutes (nature hardens us equally)
---Agility, solitude, no reason, or language
---No comparisons
-Population grows, forcing people to spread out
--In each new location people were forced to live in a new climate (fishers vs. hunter gatherers)
---Formation of families to pass on knowledge of survival in each climate
---Comparison of comparing humans to animals
-Interaction with others leads to temporary cooperation
--The stag hunt
--Begin to notice differences among various people
-Interaction in a permanent cooperation (THE PRE-MODERN SAVAGES)
(TRUE HISTORICAL SOCIETY – CARIBES IN VENZEULA)
(ROUSSEAU’S FAVORITE STATE – NO LONGER APES BUT BLISSFULLY IGNORANT)
--People sing and dance together (whose the best?)
--Differences between people lead to social status but they are still somewhat equal
---The best singer might not be the strongest or richest
--People begin to desire recognition from others out of self-love
---Leads to the beginning of pride and violence
--People are now recognizably human, but still completely independent, there is no division of labor, and everyone can take care of themselves
--Little natural inequality and little social inequality (the two are correlative)
-People claim property (close to the Hobbesian state of nature)
--Agriculture and metallurgy
--People can do more than just produce what they need; others can produce things for them
Our faculty of perfecting ourselves doesn’t necessarily lead us to perfection
Social Contract:
-Those with property want to preserve their property
--There is already inequality
(Hobbes: Social contract comes from the equality of consent)
Rulers make laws to govern
Rulers abuse laws and become tyrants
ONCE OUT OF THE STATE OF NATURE THERE IS NO TURNING BACK
Independence and equality are no longer possible in economies but it is possible in direct democracy because everyone gets an equal say
September 26, 2006
Rousseau (pt. 3)
Rousseau:
-Faculty of Perfection: Humans have the ability to increase our own capabilities (e.g. our ability to learn how to farm)
-You don’t choose to leave the state of nature, you stumble out of it.
-The first social contract was created because the rich wanted to protect their property so they made a deal with the unknowing poor.
--Leads to dependence (poor need the rich, women need men, weak need the strong)
-Society is not an unqualified good
Society must be created by consent:
Hobbes: Consent can be coerced
Locke: Coercion is not consent
Rousseau: Consent is doing whatever you do to survive
Hobbes: Anything is consent
Locke: Voting is consent
Rousseau: Voting could be an educated form of manipulation/slavery (not necessarily consent)
Rousseau: Having an arbitrary king objectively makes you a slave
Rousseau: The social contract is how the people become a people
-Each of us puts our person under the power of the general will
-The sovereign cannot create a law it can’t break
-The sovereign cannot have interests contrary to the people who empowered him
October 3, 2006
Locke (Toleration)
Toleration: government shouldn’t persecute
-The use of force belongs to the civil magistrate alone
-Government may ban religious books (outward things)
-Government can’t persecute faith (inward things)
Freedom from prosecution does not equal special treatment
-You still can’t kill babies
-Religious sects that break the law don’t have to be tolerated
Government can proselytize so long as it doesn’t use force
-Government needs to tolerate, not respect
No need to tolerate atheists (promise-breakers) or Catholics (traitors, followers of a foreign prince – the Pope)
Three arguments for toleration:
1) Government knows truth about religion --> Government has use of force --> True belief cannot be compelled by violence --> Religion is about true belief --> Government shouldn’t force people on the account of religion
2) Government knows truth about religion --> Government has use of force --> You cannot compel the right attitude on religion --> Without the right attitude, you are damned anyway, so why bother forcing religion --> Government shouldn’t force people on the account of religion
3) Government doesn’t know the truth about religion --> Government has use of force --> You can compel belief --> Man doesn’t know the truth about religion, man may be wrong --> Government shouldn’t force people on the account of religion
NOTES ON TOLERATION
Locke
-speaks about toleration of other people. He is a proponent of tolerating other people but it is important to note that this toleration does NOT equal respect.
-essentially the governemment still has a right to impose its will just not at the expense of people
- Violent criminals are NOT tolerated
-Aetheists and Catholics are NOT tolerated. Catholics have allegiances to foreign prince (pope) which makes them traitors.
Aquinas
-more extreme views
-believes a person who has left the faith can be compelled (persecuted into believing again)
-believes it is acceptable to start wars on other faiths so true faith (Catholicism in Aquinas view) will not be polluted.
Locke's views about compellance and persecution are less radical.
-Religion is internal and one cannot compel belief with violence. Therefore, violence is unnecessary.
-Religion is also about right attitudes and violence does not compel right attitudes. While the government may know the truth, it cannot modify people's attitudes.
-Violence is not usually appropriate in Christianity.
Locke's view of toleration is quite narrow but will be expanded upon by future thinkers.
October 5, 2006
Mill
Locke: Duties of Christians
-Can’t force people in belief
-Can’t force the right attitude
--People either accept it or they don’t
-You can’t tell which church is the true one
Mill: Society has the ability to control you mentally
-Shame, embarrassment
-Society’s power is limited
Harm Principle: I have the right to do anything that concerns only me. The state has the right to limit my rights if my actions harm another.
What constitutes a harm?
-Intentional
-Objective consequence
-Intolerable consequence
Mill: weigh the rights and harms against each other
-What causes more good or more harm?
-Based on the individual, not the society
Mill: defends freedom of thought through the harm principle
October 10, 2006
Mill (pt. 2)
Mill: Accepts anonymous speech because it contributes to general diversity of the discussion
Mill: Pretty much anything is allowed so long as it doesn’t cause direct physical harm
Individuality: Going against the majority’s way of life, everyone should have the freedom to find their own way.
-Too much freedom may result in barbarism
Natural Penalties: You can do what you want but people don’t have to like you.
-You can be stigmatized by society for your choices.
October 24, 2006
Tocqueville
What's Tocqueville's "Democracy"?
-Government as what the majority wants (disliked tyranny of the majority)
-Based on equality, no aristocracy or nobility (independence from others)
--Aristocracy causes people to be dependent on nobles for their entire life
-Historical process
In a democratic society the majority will also be the majority in the government
-You cannot stop the majority
Tocqueville did not see politicians as worthy of their jobs (they are of low quality)
-Believed the electorate to be of high quality
-Liked local institutions
The will of the majority in any given country is not necessarily moral
October 26, 2006
Tocqueville (pt. 2)
Problems of Democracy:
-Tyranny of the Majority
--Officials judge by public opinion and not reality causing loss of respect for the rule of law
--Influence of the majority constrains freedom of thought
---The is no one for the minority to appeal to
-Mediocre Leadership – The best people do not get elected
Equality of Conditions: Everything is open to everybody
Concentration of Power:
-“Mild Despotism” or “Administrative Despotism”
-Reliance on government diminishes the individual liberties and freedoms at the heart of democracy
--No intermediate bodies to appeal to
--Turns people into sheep
October 31, 2006
Wollstonecraft
Though she never utilized the word "feminism," she was one of the first political scientists that actively advocated equal rights for both women and men. Among other things, she believed strongly in the importance of co-ed education and heavily influenced other writers of her time, such as John Stuart Mill.
Reason is universal
-By using reason we can reach moral truths
We all have an immortal soul
Women compared with Rousseau’s “slaves in love with their chains”
For integrated education so that kids would learn about equality of sexes early in life
November 2, 2006
Mill
Chapter 1: What is good government?
Chapter 2: Why representative government is good
Chapter 3: Applicability of representative government
Freedom to have more choice/ability to improve themselves
Representative government educates people to be better people (it improves them)
Mill: History as progressing forward in a positive way
November 7, 2006
Mill (pt. 2)
I. Representative government is progressive because it provides a way to improve individuals. But it doesn’t always work.
A. Sometimes a monarchy can be better than a representative government
1. Justifying Empire: Use an imperial form of government until occupied peoples have developed to the point of good self government. (e.g. U.K.’s old policy on India)
II. Representative government as a higher stage of civilization
A. Tocqueville: Democracy is good, but still young. It is important to work out problems early in to avoid the entrenchment of bad institutions and practices
III. Mill’s Problems with Representative Government
A. Class legislation:
1. Legislation designed towards different classes
2. People have different interests depending on whether or not they have property
3. Leads to the property-less majority to vote for someone to be their guy, even if he is incompetent (tyranny of the majority)
B. Poor intellectual capacity of voters:
1. This is a problem with both voters and leaders and is still present today.
2. If people vote without knowing anything, they are simply voting as they are told
3. Mill says some votes should be weighted heavier, based on education, job positions, tests you've passed, etc.
a. ex: Voter restriction: not one man one vote, the educated’s vote should count more to balance out the uneducated
b. But the ideal situation invovles not having to impose these restrictions where one must establish situations where one citizen has an advantage over the rest.
c. There are complications to this though. i.e. Does changing the weight of the vote actually make a significant difference?
ex. Income is not an indication of education (e.g. teachers and professors don’t make $200,000)
Also, people he is giving less of a vote to have a lower voter turnout anyway.
Too much ‘tinkering’ with institutions can lead to whatever the people pulling the strings want
November 14, 2004
Kant
In modern political thought history progresses in a positive movement
-The human capacity to make today better than yesterday
Rousseau: History was progressive, but peaked and society went began its decline
-Faculty fro improvement: weapons made for hunting are recognized for other uses
Rousseau: Freedom and morality dissipate as technology improves
Tocqueville: Progress of equality and democracy = progress in justice even though democracy is still flaws
Mill: Gradual progress in the pursuit of truth creates more freedom (goals of more freedom and knowledge)
-Getting closer to the truth
-Some places are at different levels of progress
--China became civilized and stopped progressing
--Barbarians:
---Learned obedience to be subject to others (monarchy)
---Learned discipline
---Learned about promotion of individuality and freedom
Kant wrote 80 years before Mill
-Appears to agree with Mill’s idea of the progression of history in a simpler way:
--Have discussion in order to:
---Use our own reason for ourselves, understanding and forming ideas without the influence of others
Despite what we think, we’re somewhat conditioned to society’s way of thinking
Can we recognize and question the status quo? Whether or not you agree with it, the decision still must be yours alone
Seeing the status quo helps you move towards enlightenment
Too many just conform unquestionably to the status quo and tradition (this is bad)
Kant: Non-conformity is NOT equal to enlightenment (though the two may overlap at times)
Enlightenment is associated with the wholesale analysis of tradition
-Analyzing tradition rarely brings out the positive side of tradition, only the negatives are seen
--Many traditions don’t have positive virtues
--Tradition gets thrown out the window
Kant as the originator of democratic peace theory
-As time progresses and democracy progresses, war will eventually end as the entire world will be democracies,
There is no way to tell if history is going to lead to a better world, it has no direction and there is no way to predict it
November 16, 2006
Hegel
Hegel: Human nature is malleable and reasonable
Community and individual interest can be at odds and Hegel wants to offer a solution
Lessons of Hegel:
1) History is a rational process
2) History happens in the state
3) The free state is the goal of history
History: The course of rationale that leads us to where we are today
Pragmatic History: Use history to make us better citizens
Purpose of Philosophy of History: Try to figure out where we’re going
-What should we look at in history to make predictions?
-The rise and fall of cultures (what worked and what didn’t)
-History is progressive
History isn’t just a faded progression across time, it’s a rational process
-Reason, and not god, is the cause of history’s progression
-History isn’t random events, it’s a progressive trend
Substance: The community we live in and the values we share
Subject: The individuals in the community
Aristotle’s Four Causes:
1) Efficient – Ideas and Actions
2) Material – The rational state
3) Final – Reason is the purpose of history
4) The constitution and law
History progresses to freedom
Hegel believes that a liberal democracy ensures the most amount of freedom for those within its society. It is the best theoretical system of government, as shown throughout history in its competition with fascism, communism, etc, and it is, in fact, the final stage of human development. In other words, it is the final major step towards the goal of reason, truth, and ultimately freedom.
November 21, 2006
Marx
Marx believes that true freedom is found only as human beings move away from being interdependant.
Hegel as Fukuyama’s thesis
The enlightened realize there is no better choice than liberal democracy
Marx: Thought Hegel was close but not quite there
-We’re progressing to liberation but we’re not there yet, but the time will come
Marx: History progresses towards the end of the state’s dominance (freedom from dependence)
You must produce so that you can eat/survive
Marx: The mode of production molds human history
If capitalism is so successful, then communism will be even better
November 28, 2006
Marx (pt. 2)
Dialectical Materialism: WE NEVER GOT TO IT IN CLASS, BUT IF ANYONE HAS A DEFINITION, FEEL FREE TO ADD IT
Proletariat: Owners of labor
Bourgeoisie: Owners of the means of production
Class as determined by the type of property owned
If everyone starts with equal capital, eventually some people will hold the majority of means to production of life (land)
Mode of production depends on the division of labor
Towns as the concentration of capital
With the evolution of the town comes the creation of supervisory labor (tax collects and whatnot)
Division of labor in towns: those who make versus those who trade
Division of capital between towns with the evolution of communications
-Specialization of Towns
--Detroit does cars
--NYC does stocks
Continuous division of labor
-With more technologies there is more ability to specialize labor
As labor becomes specialized, the connection between employer and employee becomes one of dependence
-Individual workers need the boss, but the boss can find other workers
In capitalism the bourgeoisie already have the freedoms that the proletariat does not have
-Communism lends these freedoms to the worker
-This is still better however than the divide between slave and slave owner
Political alienation from capital will lead to a societal revolution when the proletariat takes power (change in the means of production)
-But things have kept getting better for everybody so far, so where’s the revolution?